Williamtown Class E Stuff-Up?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank....I get it now.
Just because at one or two very rare moments in time the Kiwis and maybe some test flights in Europ have adopted some VFR type rules....on an IFR type flight with very rare and exceptional circumstances, and due to circumstances we may never ever get here in Oz, we should just roll over and accept this should we?
Frank you are either thread drifting or conspiring with others to bate a party to a particular answer to then be used out of context in this debate or others.
So far I have never seen you butt out mate, and considering I just barely qualified to respond to your question I did. I am interested to know how this really applies to all day every day operations here in Oz, and for that matter elsewhere, volcano's excepted.
J
Just because at one or two very rare moments in time the Kiwis and maybe some test flights in Europ have adopted some VFR type rules....on an IFR type flight with very rare and exceptional circumstances, and due to circumstances we may never ever get here in Oz, we should just roll over and accept this should we?
Frank you are either thread drifting or conspiring with others to bate a party to a particular answer to then be used out of context in this debate or others.
So far I have never seen you butt out mate, and considering I just barely qualified to respond to your question I did. I am interested to know how this really applies to all day every day operations here in Oz, and for that matter elsewhere, volcano's excepted.
J
-----looking out the window when ATC can't give you a clearance in surveillance airspace beggars belief.
You better take that one up with the management of a major Australian airline, and Australian CAA/CASA, and NZ CAA, because such decisions are not made in isolation by individual Captains.But, what would they collectively know, compared to a universal expert like you
For us, operating where there is NO ATC is not unusual, even thought if may be a daunting thought for you, to not have somebody to hold your hand.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick said:
An ATC clearance is required for a VFR climb/descent when flying IFR - and be advised for any pilot who may think this is a good idea - ATC WILL no longer separate you from other IFR aircraft, you get traffic info (as per AIP/ERSA). IFR pick-up you dont need the clearance, but equally dont expect separation from any possibly conflicting traffic, just info.
I must stress here, think about the penalties to the other aircraft involved. They may be IFR and plan on getting full separation from other IFRs, if you take VC/VD or IPU, they dont get the separation either.
If talking about a Visual departure, IFR in VMC, it will be to a level below the MSA/LSALT (as per AIP)
Its neither safe nor sensible. If you havent received a clearance its normally because there's a very good reason - 99/100 its a conflicting aircraft.
As for flying into a mountain, the pilot should remain within the area where the LSALT or where Route LS allows him not to fly into a mountain at the level.
Whats the point of having any class of airspace except G & A then. If you arent going to abide by a clearance, or lack thereof, then why on earth did you bother with E?
You say its safer in IMC, how. You may be flying in a cloud but 5 miles further on it may be clear as abell and you come out of IMC and see a beautiful VFR silver bird plowing straight at you at the same level.
There is no safety net in just climbing if you are VMC. There have been multiple airmisses and worst around the world in VMC where neither pilot saw each other. It was only on TV last night about an AeroMexico and a bonanza-ry thing.
if you are on an IFR flight plan and you haven’t got a clearance, keep climbing when in VMC. That’s the only safe and sensible thing to do
I must stress here, think about the penalties to the other aircraft involved. They may be IFR and plan on getting full separation from other IFRs, if you take VC/VD or IPU, they dont get the separation either.
If talking about a Visual departure, IFR in VMC, it will be to a level below the MSA/LSALT (as per AIP)
Its neither safe nor sensible. If you havent received a clearance its normally because there's a very good reason - 99/100 its a conflicting aircraft.
As for flying into a mountain, the pilot should remain within the area where the LSALT or where Route LS allows him not to fly into a mountain at the level.
Whats the point of having any class of airspace except G & A then. If you arent going to abide by a clearance, or lack thereof, then why on earth did you bother with E?
You say its safer in IMC, how. You may be flying in a cloud but 5 miles further on it may be clear as abell and you come out of IMC and see a beautiful VFR silver bird plowing straight at you at the same level.
There is no safety net in just climbing if you are VMC. There have been multiple airmisses and worst around the world in VMC where neither pilot saw each other. It was only on TV last night about an AeroMexico and a bonanza-ry thing.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leadsled,
where is there class E with no ATC service??????
its an oxymoron as you need clearance (IFR) to enter E, under most circumstances.
You need to stop mixing your classes and airports. stick to one thing and one thing alone.
Its either a thread about having airports in class g, or madcap class e.
Stop picking a comment someone has made about one thing and then applying it to something completely different to try and prove your point that you lost the moment you clicked the submit reply button.....
For us, operating where there is NO ATC is not unusual
its an oxymoron as you need clearance (IFR) to enter E, under most circumstances.
You need to stop mixing your classes and airports. stick to one thing and one thing alone.
Its either a thread about having airports in class g, or madcap class e.
Stop picking a comment someone has made about one thing and then applying it to something completely different to try and prove your point that you lost the moment you clicked the submit reply button.....
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Class E deniers don't seem to understand.
We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved.
This problem is a combination of uniquely Australian stuff ups.
Glass G at an airport and class E starting at 4500ft AGL where the collision risk drops dramatically. Unique Australian design stuff up.
Would be IFR aircraft that are not considered IFR (no clearance) but are not considered VFR either (restricted from entering Class E). Unique Australian design stuff up.
We are a laughing stock.
We should copy the United States here and issue an airways clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND prior to departure. Class E should go to the ground when the tower closes. Problem solved.
This problem is a combination of uniquely Australian stuff ups.
Glass G at an airport and class E starting at 4500ft AGL where the collision risk drops dramatically. Unique Australian design stuff up.
Would be IFR aircraft that are not considered IFR (no clearance) but are not considered VFR either (restricted from entering Class E). Unique Australian design stuff up.
We are a laughing stock.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Continental US has far greater surveillance coverage and 10 000 plus controllers. Australia has far less coverage and about 800 controllers.
I would say that probably gives the US contollers a better fighting chance of monitoring their airspace.
Dick, any chance of you getting an operational US ATC on here to discuss with operational Aus ATCs, the differences between airspaces?
I would say that probably gives the US contollers a better fighting chance of monitoring their airspace.
Dick, any chance of you getting an operational US ATC on here to discuss with operational Aus ATCs, the differences between airspaces?
mjbow2 said:
And you want us to trust these guys to design the airspace above Broome?
Can't have it both ways ...
Glass G at an airport and class E starting at 4500ft AGL where the collision risk drops dramatically. Unique Australian design stuff up.
Can't have it both ways ...
I have found that if ATC haven't given me a clearance to enter Class E it is because there is traffic already in it that they can't separate. Blasting off into it VFR is not going to remove that traffic from the picture. 
Thread Starter
rmcdonal - you state:
However, when the airspace is Class G as it was until a few months ago, you would naturally keep climbing in the G just with the traffic information service. Don’t you see the point I’m trying to make?
For example, at Ballina we have Class G all the way down to the runway. At the present time, airline pilots depart Ballina in VMC simply receiving traffic information on other IFR aircraft.
However, if we upgrade THE SAME LOCATION to E, they then instantly say, when VMC exists “oh, we can’t climb in E receiving a traffic information service because that’s dangerous”.
All that happens with this type of thinking is we are prevented from upgrading to safer Class E from G because Pilots and Controllers will not use the versatility of Class E, ie. the advantages of G when VMC exists and the advantages of A when IMC exists.
These advantages can only be used if you use the airspace properly.
I have found that if ATC haven't given me a clearance to enter Class E it is because there is traffic already in it that they can't separate
For example, at Ballina we have Class G all the way down to the runway. At the present time, airline pilots depart Ballina in VMC simply receiving traffic information on other IFR aircraft.
However, if we upgrade THE SAME LOCATION to E, they then instantly say, when VMC exists “oh, we can’t climb in E receiving a traffic information service because that’s dangerous”.
All that happens with this type of thinking is we are prevented from upgrading to safer Class E from G because Pilots and Controllers will not use the versatility of Class E, ie. the advantages of G when VMC exists and the advantages of A when IMC exists.
These advantages can only be used if you use the airspace properly.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow
There is no route segregation so almost impossible. Give us a proper SID/STAR system that automatically segregates traffic with arrivals vs departures and then can get a clearance on the ground with little problem.
We dont know how long it is going to take to get airborne, by which time the traffic situation has changed. Once a level has been given away it blocks it off for anything else, i.e. the arrival gets kept up high. Also, I have seen some strange manoeuvres on departure, for example turning south and doing a 270deg right turn and head northbound from the overhead. We cant give away the whole of E airspace with a clearance on the ground.
clearance to IFR, ON THE GROUND
We dont know how long it is going to take to get airborne, by which time the traffic situation has changed. Once a level has been given away it blocks it off for anything else, i.e. the arrival gets kept up high. Also, I have seen some strange manoeuvres on departure, for example turning south and doing a 270deg right turn and head northbound from the overhead. We cant give away the whole of E airspace with a clearance on the ground.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or example, at Ballina we have Class G all the way down to the runway. At the present time, airline pilots depart Ballina in VMC simply receiving traffic information on other IFR aircraft.
Local traffic there has a pretty good awareness of the RPT ops, and generally keeps clear when RPT arrives. Itinerant aircraft are a problem, but usually ATC will give some sort of traffic info on anything that paints.
“oh, we can’t climb in E receiving a traffic information service because that’s dangerous”
Even though we make VMC departures, we fly under the IFR - and we are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to depart VFR and get an 'IFR Pickup'.
In all honesty, I don't recall being denied a clearance into CTA. It's usually given on the departure or airborne call. And believe me, we go balls to the wall Vert Speed to get out of the CTAF-R and into CTA.
If we don't get that clearance, we stooge around, cranking our necks out the window like Meerkats, flying up against the bottom CTA, above our LSALT's trying to 'See & Avoid'
. No one intentionally flies below LSALTs.Mixing jets with ultralights in CTAFs, Class G - absolutely blows, frankly.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Explain what you mean by VMC climb without clearance.
Do you mean 'VFR climb'? or 'IFR pick-up'? Or mixed flight rules flight 'VFR to IFR'?
You cant just say im IFR in VMC so am gonna climb regardless. That is reckless. Just because you can climb without a clearance in G doesnt mean you can do it just as safely in E. Why stop at E, why not just climb regardless in C or A with traffic info?
You would've received a traffic statement whilst taxiing which will cover the initial TI, but not necessarily on something transiting at 8000, because you are initially only going to climb to 4500 or below. What happens if when you get airborne ATC are dealing with an emergency or weather avoidance etc you cant get in to get a clearance and decide 'Im VMC' im just gonna blast into class E. you could end up flying into IFR traffic you dont know about.
Equally, You've pushed a lot of non-transponder traffic down a lot lower (below 4500) when previously they could be below 8500. so you've reduced the space for missing each other, reduced the flexibility of VFR and IFR flights and increased misunderstanding of the procedures, caused IFR flights (in a couple of directions of travel) to initially have to climb to a level that is nearly 2000' below the LSALT (outside of 25miles). The margin for error has been reduced not increased.
If you want clearance on the ground and increased safety, make it a class D control zone to the ground, then all traffic is known. Or even better make Tower ATC be present for all RPT arrivals.
when VMC exists
Do you mean 'VFR climb'? or 'IFR pick-up'? Or mixed flight rules flight 'VFR to IFR'?
You cant just say im IFR in VMC so am gonna climb regardless. That is reckless. Just because you can climb without a clearance in G doesnt mean you can do it just as safely in E. Why stop at E, why not just climb regardless in C or A with traffic info?
You would've received a traffic statement whilst taxiing which will cover the initial TI, but not necessarily on something transiting at 8000, because you are initially only going to climb to 4500 or below. What happens if when you get airborne ATC are dealing with an emergency or weather avoidance etc you cant get in to get a clearance and decide 'Im VMC' im just gonna blast into class E. you could end up flying into IFR traffic you dont know about.
Equally, You've pushed a lot of non-transponder traffic down a lot lower (below 4500) when previously they could be below 8500. so you've reduced the space for missing each other, reduced the flexibility of VFR and IFR flights and increased misunderstanding of the procedures, caused IFR flights (in a couple of directions of travel) to initially have to climb to a level that is nearly 2000' below the LSALT (outside of 25miles). The margin for error has been reduced not increased.
If you want clearance on the ground and increased safety, make it a class D control zone to the ground, then all traffic is known. Or even better make Tower ATC be present for all RPT arrivals.
Thread Starter
Jet_A_Knight
In relation to my suggestion that you climb in E in VMC receiving an identical traffic information service to what you would in G,you state:
Now, let’s analyse this.
Presently there is G airspace at Ballina. Are you EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from departing in the G IFR and receiving a traffic information service and looking out for the other traffic?
No, you are not.
However, if we upgrade the airspace to E, suddenly your mind shuts down and says, “E means a clearance for IFR and means danger for IFR climbing in VMC without a clearance”
I think others will see the problem here. We are simply changing the name of an airspace so we can use it as controlled airspace when IMC exists and as uncontrolled airspace when VMC exists, ie. we wish to keep the advantages of Class G at Ballina when VMC exists PLUS extra advantages of Class A when IMC exists.
Peuce, you say you are expressly forbidden from climbing in Class E in VMC without a clearance, however if we make the airspace Class G, you are allowed to do exactly that.
The reason you are expressly forbidden from climbing in G without a clearance in VMC is because unbelievably stubborn, concrete-minded people – including Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers and some within the regulatory system – have decided that you cannot use the advantages of E airspace in Australia. I once heard from Mick Toller that the reason we are different is that once you taxi in Australia and give a taxi call under IFR you are then considered IFR and you cannot enter E without a clearance.
In other countries, you can even be given your IFR transponder code, but you are not considered IFR until you actually have the clearance. This means you can climb without a clearance to the safest possible level – exactly what you do today at Ballina in Class G.
In relation to my suggestion that you climb in E in VMC receiving an identical traffic information service to what you would in G,you state:
No, we'd say we can't enter it until we have a clearance
Even though we make VMC departures, we fly under the IFR - and we are EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN to depart VFR and get an 'IFR Pickup'.
Presently there is G airspace at Ballina. Are you EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from departing in the G IFR and receiving a traffic information service and looking out for the other traffic?
No, you are not.
However, if we upgrade the airspace to E, suddenly your mind shuts down and says, “E means a clearance for IFR and means danger for IFR climbing in VMC without a clearance”
I think others will see the problem here. We are simply changing the name of an airspace so we can use it as controlled airspace when IMC exists and as uncontrolled airspace when VMC exists, ie. we wish to keep the advantages of Class G at Ballina when VMC exists PLUS extra advantages of Class A when IMC exists.
Peuce, you say you are expressly forbidden from climbing in Class E in VMC without a clearance, however if we make the airspace Class G, you are allowed to do exactly that.
The reason you are expressly forbidden from climbing in G without a clearance in VMC is because unbelievably stubborn, concrete-minded people – including Pilots, Air Traffic Controllers and some within the regulatory system – have decided that you cannot use the advantages of E airspace in Australia. I once heard from Mick Toller that the reason we are different is that once you taxi in Australia and give a taxi call under IFR you are then considered IFR and you cannot enter E without a clearance.
In other countries, you can even be given your IFR transponder code, but you are not considered IFR until you actually have the clearance. This means you can climb without a clearance to the safest possible level – exactly what you do today at Ballina in Class G.
Dick,
I think you mixed me up with someone else, but that's not important.
Okay, let's look at Ballina...
Class G
RPT calls taxying and gets traffic information from ATC ... on IFRs. He gets the VFR picture from the CTAF. Once he departs, he continues to get Traffic Information until he gets his clearance.
Class E
RPT calls taxying and, if he is IFR (which all RPTs will be .. at the moment) he will get a clearance and , I guess, has to look out for VFRs ... not required to call. If he could change to VFR, he would get nothing.
And, from what ARFOR provided, Terminal Class E is not permitted in Australia.. so it's a moot point anyway.
I think you mixed me up with someone else, but that's not important.
Okay, let's look at Ballina...
Class G
RPT calls taxying and gets traffic information from ATC ... on IFRs. He gets the VFR picture from the CTAF. Once he departs, he continues to get Traffic Information until he gets his clearance.
Class E
RPT calls taxying and, if he is IFR (which all RPTs will be .. at the moment) he will get a clearance and , I guess, has to look out for VFRs ... not required to call. If he could change to VFR, he would get nothing.
And, from what ARFOR provided, Terminal Class E is not permitted in Australia.. so it's a moot point anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other countries, you can even be given your IFR transponder code, but you are not considered IFR until you actually have the clearance
If you file your flight plan as just IFR, then you are IFR. If you want to start off VFR and change to IFR then file as such and you will be treated as VFR until IFR clearance available. Simple.
Im not sure you understand e or G, Dick.Departing IFR in G is not even remotely the same as departing VFR with IFR pick-up.
The reason you are expressly forbidden from climbing in G without a clearance in VMC is because unbelievably stubborn
controlled airspace when IMC exists and as uncontrolled airspace when VMC exists
I do wonder Dick, how you manage not to answer any questions that are asked you that are true & correct that dont support your world view - probably because they are just that - they prove what you say is false. Yet you happily pick apart statements people make that dont stroke your ego by twisting what they say & misinterpreting the point they are making.
Dick,
Sorry I've been missing all day. Had to go flying and do battle with a VFR who wouldn't talk. Glad he had his transponder on, otherwise we would have gone close to clocking him (as it was we got a TA). Ever tried to pick up a lighty, headon, with a closing of probably 400kts? Just like it'll be in your fabled E airspace around Broome. VFR not on freq, unknown to anybody until the TCAS lights up. I didn't bother explaining the situation to the 108 punters in the back; they probably would have wanted your address. But I digress.
If you were an experienced IFR pilot, you would know that the Willy and Ballina scenarios are totally different.
At Ballina on taxi, we get IFR traffic info from ATC, and we also get traffic on VFRs in the area (if they are doing the right thing). From that, I decide on a plan that will keep me safe from the traffic which will also consider weather and terrain and agree it with the other aircraft. When I'm ready, off I go.
At Willy, arguably a much busier piece of sky, ATC tells me that a clearance will not be available. I wonder why? Because even with radar separation standards, they can't give me one, because the traffic is so close! I am not about to say "oh well stuff that, I'll be right and go VFR; Bloggs, if you level at 5000ft, I'll climb to 4000 until we've passed"! What about other IFR traffic that ATC hasn't told me about? What about the VFR traffic that might not on the freq (area or CTAF because he's not in "the vicinity", nor has any attempt to be made to check his transponder). I would stay on the ground, lined up, until a clearance became available.
So your comparison of Ballina and Willy is invalid.
It is ridiculous that you urge IFR pilots to just blast off and change to VFR because they can't get a clearance (or stay "VFR") without a full analysis of what traffic is around AND a broadcast to alert some poor IFR coming the other way that I'm potentially about to scare him. The fare-paying pax in the back did not pay for that. This is not the John Wayne era of ridem cowboy, this is 2010 and we actually have an obligation to ensure the safety of our pax using whatever reasonable means are available. IMO that does not include blasting off VFR into low-level E airspace!
You're joking, aren't you? E only works because IFR aircraft have to take unnecessary risks to get through it.
Now if VFR in E was on freq with a verified transponder ie identified, things might be different. Then at least the A380 would know where the VFR was to be able to take avoiding action!
Sorry I've been missing all day. Had to go flying and do battle with a VFR who wouldn't talk. Glad he had his transponder on, otherwise we would have gone close to clocking him (as it was we got a TA). Ever tried to pick up a lighty, headon, with a closing of probably 400kts? Just like it'll be in your fabled E airspace around Broome. VFR not on freq, unknown to anybody until the TCAS lights up. I didn't bother explaining the situation to the 108 punters in the back; they probably would have wanted your address. But I digress.
If you were an experienced IFR pilot, you would know that the Willy and Ballina scenarios are totally different.
At Ballina on taxi, we get IFR traffic info from ATC, and we also get traffic on VFRs in the area (if they are doing the right thing). From that, I decide on a plan that will keep me safe from the traffic which will also consider weather and terrain and agree it with the other aircraft. When I'm ready, off I go.
At Willy, arguably a much busier piece of sky, ATC tells me that a clearance will not be available. I wonder why? Because even with radar separation standards, they can't give me one, because the traffic is so close! I am not about to say "oh well stuff that, I'll be right and go VFR; Bloggs, if you level at 5000ft, I'll climb to 4000 until we've passed"! What about other IFR traffic that ATC hasn't told me about? What about the VFR traffic that might not on the freq (area or CTAF because he's not in "the vicinity", nor has any attempt to be made to check his transponder). I would stay on the ground, lined up, until a clearance became available.
So your comparison of Ballina and Willy is invalid.
It is ridiculous that you urge IFR pilots to just blast off and change to VFR because they can't get a clearance (or stay "VFR") without a full analysis of what traffic is around AND a broadcast to alert some poor IFR coming the other way that I'm potentially about to scare him. The fare-paying pax in the back did not pay for that. This is not the John Wayne era of ridem cowboy, this is 2010 and we actually have an obligation to ensure the safety of our pax using whatever reasonable means are available. IMO that does not include blasting off VFR into low-level E airspace!
These advantages can only be used if you use the airspace properly.
Now if VFR in E was on freq with a verified transponder ie identified, things might be different. Then at least the A380 would know where the VFR was to be able to take avoiding action!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 22nd Apr 2010 at 07:53.
Ledsled,
Bit hypocritical there, old chap. Swearing black and blue that YANKNAS is the way to go, that ICAONAS is the way to go, but we have a unique transponder requirement in E. Why is that? Because your risk analysis showed that ICAO E is not safe enough? Yes, your honour...
They were only shooting 303s at the time. What's the big deal? Let's keep the drama level down to Home and Away levels shall we?
What wonderful logic, you stay at low level in G in case there is un-notified VFR (which will have a transponder) in E --- with no idea what is in G, with or without a transponder.
...letting down in the firing range at Evans Head...
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dick,
No, it does not. You're making an incorrect assumption. My mind goes to 'We need a clearance to depart".
I'm not arguing the fact that "E" is safer than "G". Understand that I'm saying, we operate IFR everywhere we fly to. We can't depart anywhere VFR in VMC then call for an IFR pickup in order to climb up into Class C & A so therefore we are subject to ATC clearance to enter Class E.
If I just charged into Class E sans clearance, I'd be explaining the ESIR that ATC issued on me, and if Idid that a few times, then I suppose the Chief Pilot would clip my wings.
If I had my way, I'd have the airspace we operated into subject to ATC control and clearance, and traffic prioritised similar to YSSY. I'm more concerned with the safety of myself and the fare paying RPT passengers I haul around than the freedom for privateers to fly wherever, whenever they want.
However, if we upgrade the airspace to E, suddenly your mind shuts down and says, “E means a clearance for IFR and means danger for IFR climbing in VMC without a clearance”
I'm not arguing the fact that "E" is safer than "G". Understand that I'm saying, we operate IFR everywhere we fly to. We can't depart anywhere VFR in VMC then call for an IFR pickup in order to climb up into Class C & A so therefore we are subject to ATC clearance to enter Class E.
If I just charged into Class E sans clearance, I'd be explaining the ESIR that ATC issued on me, and if Idid that a few times, then I suppose the Chief Pilot would clip my wings.
If I had my way, I'd have the airspace we operated into subject to ATC control and clearance, and traffic prioritised similar to YSSY. I'm more concerned with the safety of myself and the fare paying RPT passengers I haul around than the freedom for privateers to fly wherever, whenever they want.
----where is there class E with no ATC service??????
When somebody doesn't turn up for work, when there is nobody on the ground, for whatever reason. In the parts of the world where that happens, if we canceled the service, or turned tail there would be precious few services.
Who remembers the morning "they" lost the keys of Cairns tower??
In part, the comment was for Bloggs, who (if he is actually a pilot) seems to have spent his or her flying time in a very narrow, cosseted and orderly straighjacketed environment, where all the decisions (except, perhaps, what dressing to have on his salad) has already been made for him.
He appears to have simply no comprehension about what happens outside the Australian 12 mile limit ---- the real world where many aircraft ( including VH- RPT) operate in any airspace that may cross their track, from G on up with whatever CNS/ATM services that are available, starting with nil/none/zilch.
ARFOR,
Once again, you have demonstrated you are the master of cut and paste, but nowhere have you shown any understanding of the intent of ICAO CNS/ATM processes.
You put your own definitions on chosen words and phrases, seemingly without any idea of how those words are actually interpreted in a process that includes risk management justified benefit/cost analysis, and not just of the apparent cost of the CNS/ATM service provider.
Along with a number of other posters, you assume that anybody who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or ill-informed, could it possible be that you and your compatriots are the ones whose knowledge has some serious gaps.
As to instrument procedure design, have you ever done an ICAO specialists course on the subject ?? I have, would you believe on behalf of my union?? I know what I am talking about, you just choose your interpretation of my words. I stand by every word of what I said on the subject, I still work in the area to this day. You do know that most Airservices work in this area is done externally, do you??
Re. reference systems:
---The previous comparisons in this thread of the US and Australian systems completely eliminates this option as a valid comparison.
That might be your opinion/the opinion of other ppruners, to which you are all entitled, but it is no more than an assertion, that was not accepted by either the UK NATS or FAA consultants during the period of the operation of the NAS implementation team.
Then a wonderful assertion from you:
----the risk of un-alerted not see and not avoid in Class E is not zero, it is also not vanishingly small when considering the concentration of climbing and descending aircraft in and around terminal area airspace.
That you clearly believe otherwise only further serves to illustrate your fundamental lack of understanding of risk analysis. The Airservices ARM model produces results with a high degree of confidence, with valid data. However, as we have seen, and as is true of all modeling, garbage in = garbage out.
And, of course, per. the Ministerial directive, for C there has to be terminal radar ---- which makes for some interesting potential civil liabilities in the current non-radar C environment.
If the aerodrome traffic only justifies a D tower, by definition (low level) C cannot be justified over D, it is simply impossible for the approach and departure traffic, clear of the circuit area, the D zone, to present a greater collision risk than in the immediate D zone of the aerodrome.
The collision risk cannot increase as the traffic spreads out, to assert otherwise ---- I'll leave that to others to judge.
That you can't understand/accept that, we all know, but it is a fact, nevertheless. And I mean fact, it is not an assertion by me. No collision risk model exists, that could reach such a conclusion, including the Airservices ARM model.
In any event, none of you have justified the continual assertion that VFR (with mandatory transponder) in E represents a greater threat than VFR in G, in the same volume of airspace.
The value doesn't actually interest me, because whatever the VFR traffic level, E is either not required or too dangerous. There is no in-between.
Bloggs,
What absolute rubbish, once again, bald assertions without a shred of justification.Let us know, please, why E in the rest of the world just doesn't cause problems, but would be( in your opinion) bordering on suicidal in Australia. Not assertions, just facts.
Perhaps the following from you :
would be far more accurate if you edited you comments to read:
C needs radar. I don't think soooooo...
C needs radar. I don't think
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 22nd Apr 2010 at 09:40.